Search This Blog

ON APPLES AND ORANGUTANS

I
recently read in some periodical that experts are debating the purpose of consciousness. It exists, they say, but we
don’t know why. The happenings of the world could take place just as easily
without “someone” doing them, in fact more easily, as this would take out the
element of human choice, and error, doubts, second thoughts, confusion, all the
stuff that makes daily life so complicated. And maybe also interesting.

But
imagine a world in which there wasn’t a thinker to dread getting out of bed in
the morning. It would be a much easier world to live in. We’d all be up at the
crack at dawn, maybe getting an easy 10 miles in before a breakfast of wheat
grass and Metamucil. In short, living robots, always doing the right thing.
Because when we don’t, who’s to blame but the doubter, and what’s the doubter
if not the mind, and why is the mind so often mistaken for consciousness anyway?

Imagine
a world without heartache, but for it there are such lovely songs as this.

I
may be overthinking the matter. But I posit that these experts are going about
it all wrong. Rather than attempt to identify the purpose of consciousness in
the grand scheme of things, it is I think more accurate to view consciousness
as the cause and source of all things, which then pervades everything, as an
energy or a force, thereby giving it life. For without this energy, force, or
current that is consciousness, there would be no events of life. No universe as
we know it.

The
problem then is in the definition of consciousness. Scientists and many
philosophers view it in the narrow sense of personal identity. They equate it with the mind. But the mystics
and metaphysicians take the broader view of consciousness as creative force,
the canvass on which all takes place. It has been said by those far wiser than
I that this force or current is present not only in life forms - humans, the
lower animals and plants - but also in the constituents that make up life, not
just cells but molecules, atoms, even subatomic particles.

Consider
how it is that the electron knows to orbit the atom’s nucleus. Does it think?
Has it a will of its own? Or does it merely act in accordance with scientific
principles? If so, who put these principles in place? The physicist says no
one, it is simply how the universe is made up. Who is responsible for the order
of the universe if not some higher power? The argument from design would
suggest an intelligent maker. But who is running the show? The religious person
says that’s easy: God. The scientist stifles a guffaw. If God exists and is
all-good, why did God make evil? he secretly mutters to himself. If God is
all-powerful, can he circumvent the cosmic order? Let’s see your God make orangutans
speak Spanish and apples rise from the tree instead of fall; let your
intelligent maker try and beat blackjack with a pair of 10s. You can see why the religious
person and the scientists don’t often meet for coffee. But this is not about
that. It is about consciousness – itself a term many consider to be synonymous
with God, but we’ll let that slide.

Consider
the human cell. The microscopic meeting point of inanimate matter (the atom)
and the living world of apples and orangutans. The average cell is a complex
entity. It has various functions depending on its location in the body. The
liver cells detoxify. The skin cells protect. The lung cells process oxygen.
The kidney cells secrete waste. Etc. These are so many nationalities. And like the human body, the cell has various
parts. Its organelles - mitochondria, ribosomes, lysosomes, Golgi apparatus, and
so on - can be said to correspond to the human body’s organs.

The
cell is filled with fluid and enclosed in a membrane, like us. Like us it is alive,
though not in the way we breathing, bleeding humans are alive, because
individually it does not breathe or bleed. It does so collectively, the way the
residents of America make up our country, which then has a pastime and national
anthem, erects monuments, wages war, falls into debt and cuts deals. But does
the cell think? Again, it doesn’t have a brain, although the neurons of the CNS
make up that important organ. But is the cell conscious, in the way you and I
are? In other words, is it aware of its existence, of its individuality as an
identity separate from those around it?

How
does a cell know what functions to perform? The immune cells, for example, are
programmed to respond to invaders. They react to a foreign presence via a
coordinated series of signals mediated by messengers ranging from cytokines to neurotransmitters
and hormones. But what governs their individual actions? The genes in the nuclear
DNA? Maybe in part. The actions of other cells? Is it simply the way they are
built? Yes, if you believe form dictates function. And if cells are conscious -
and why would they not be, as individual life forms just like us? Let’s remind
ourselves that we eukaryotes (multicellular organisms) did evolve from the
single-celled prokaryote, the modern-day individual cell; only now you have as
many trillion cells swimming around your insides as your body weight in
kilograms – but, I say, if cells are thinking beings, and also programmed to
act a certain way depending on their structure and location within the body,
then what about free will? Do our cells as conscious entities get together and
debate their own existence and freedom of choice? Even if they could, they are
doubtlessly too busy with the upkeep and maintenance of the body. And so they
leave it to those of us humans with time on our hands.

But
suppose you could ask a hepatocyte, a cell in the liver tasked with purifying
the blood, whether it had a choice in the matter. Must it break down the
alcohol in that martini you just drank? Or does it like a human fancy that it
can move away from home and say, go live in bone marrow? There’s a name for
cells that behave this way. It’s called cancer. Luckily your liver cells stay
put. Alcohol is a heady thing. Free will, too.

And
if cells are not conscious, if they simply perform their functions as a
function of a response to their environment in accordance with their physical
make-up and genetic constitution, then it makes one wonder whether
consciousness even exists, since what we humans do is much like the activities
of these microscopic units that fill us. Watch us in traffic on the freeway.
Such a coordinated endeavor, each car responding to others in a way that is
almost symphonic, making accidents extremely unlikely. Accidents do happen, of
course; just like they do at the cellular level. It’s called cancer.

Are
we really conscious? Are we really thinking? Is the mind illusion? Is doership
a myth? And what about free will? Are we just predestined and programmed to
respond to our environment in a certain way, given the situation? Is the whole
individual just a macrocosm of the cells that make her up? There
was once a time in our history that primitive humans endowed the elements with
consciousness, even with volition. There was the god of thunder, and wind, and
the sea deity. Mother Nature and Mother Earth are modern day throwbacks. As our
understanding of science grew we identified the formerly mysterious processes
underlying our environment and left the various cults behind. And so we freed
ourselves from false notions. Maybe the cult of the mind is the final link in
the chain.

I
would argue that before symbols like these words you’re reading, before
language, before civilization, our relationship with the environment was much different
than it is today. It is the mind that processes symbols, and in a world where
fewer symbols existed, the mind would not be so hyper-developed as it is today.
Individuals would directly experience their environment; they would act less as
individuals and more as parts of a whole. A symbiosis would exist. Identity
would be less about a person’s body and safety, and more about the safety of
the community.

Isn’t
this what cells do? They don’t have books to read, TV to watch, these questions
to consider (perhaps that’s a good thing); their every action is geared to the
well-being of the organism, on maintaining and protecting themselves sure, but
only so the being as a whole can thrive. A cell will even kill itself once it
has become damaged or old. This is called apoptosis, or programmed cell death,
and it’s done for the good of the organism, whose performance would suffer for
the existence of another broken piece.

Cells
sacrifice individuality for the sake of totality. Perhaps because at the
cellular level there is no concept of individuality. Because there is no mind.
Just consciousness. And without mind the body seems to work just fine. We
humans should take a cue from our microscopic parts and kick the habit of
thinking. It’s such a heady thing.

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Other Apps

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Other Apps

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I was watching the TV show Naked and Afraid last night as I sometimes do. The show teams together two strangers, a man and a woman, who attempt to survive on their own for a period of 21 days in some remote and isolated region. Some of the locales featured include the Australian Outback, the Amazonian rainforest and the African Savanna. The man may have a military background, or be an adventurist or deep sea fisherman. Sometimes he's an ordinary dude who lives with mom. The woman is a park ranger or extreme fitness enthusiast or "just a mom" herself. Sometimes the couple quarrel, sometimes one or both "tap out" (quit) in a fit of anger or illness. It is satisfying to see them actually make it through the challenge and reach their extraction point. The victors are usually exhausted, emaciated, begrimed and bare ass naked.

Even more satisfying, at least for me, is the occasional ass shot, snuck in at strategic intervals to boost viewership, of course. It's co…

I hereby proclaim that June is meditation month. And July and August and some of September too. For me at least. During the hundred days that comprise summer, give or take, I have taken it upon myself to "assume the position" for approximately one hour each day, usually divided into two 30-minute sessions. During this time I sit in front of a candle flame, let my breathing subside, and with it my mental activity, and literally count the seconds.

The reductive tendency that is emblematic of science has penetrated schools of meditation, and there are many, each of which advertises its particular breed as, if not being the best, at least boasting novel or specific benefits not found in other forms of meditation.

For example, there is mindfulness, which is the monitoring of thoughts. There is concentration or focus, as on an object or the breath. There is transcendental meditation, which uses the inward repetition of a phrase, or mantra, to "allow your active mind to easily …

To be spontaneous or systematic, that's the question. Or SOS, as the Police sing. Within me these two opposing characteristics are ever at war. I suppose we're all born more of the former. What child is not up for a trip to the candy store on a whim? But our educational system drums in the systematic approach to problem solving. You must progress from number 1 to 10 on your test. Each class is 50 minutes long. Etc. And indeed having a schedule and being methodical can lead to greater material success. If you only do what you feel like you may never study math, or organize your closet. But enslaving yourself to a ritual can suck all the fun out of life. To reconcile the two approaches we've evolved the weekend, which is basically a short vacation from the rigid workday, a time to play in an unstructured way. The athlete has his rest days, a time away from play. The family has the trip to the Bahamas. There are semester breaks in school, though having an entire summer off is…